785 S.E.2d 369
S.C.2016Background
- Ronald Lee Legg was convicted of a lewd act on a minor; sentenced to 12 years, placed on the sex-offender registry, and subject to GPS monitoring.
- At trial the State played a videotaped forensic interview of the alleged child-victim and the child also testified live; Legg cross-examined the child about inconsistencies between the tape and trial testimony.
- Trial court admitted the videotape under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-23-175 after a hearing finding the recording possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
- Legg mounted a facial procedural Due Process challenge to § 17-23-175, arguing the statute arbitrarily permits the jury to hear the alleged victim’s testimony twice, thereby bolstering the State’s case and denying a fair trial.
- The Supreme Court of South Carolina reviewed whether the statute is unconstitutional in all its applications (a Salerno facial challenge) and whether its use here deprived Legg of procedural Due Process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Legg) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 17-23-175 is facially unconstitutional under procedural Due Process because it allows a child’s out-of-court recorded statement and live testimony to be presented to the jury (i.e., "double" testimony). | The statute arbitrarily permits the alleged victim’s testimony to be presented twice, bolstering the State and violating Due Process. | The statute can be applied in a way that does not unfairly duplicate or bolster evidence; duplication can aid defense impeachment and does not make the statute inherently unconstitutional. | The Court held the facial challenge fails under Salerno: § 17-23-175 is not facially unconstitutional because it can be applied without violating procedural Due Process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Due Process is a flexible concept requiring procedures that fit the circumstances)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (procedural due process guarantees a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) (due process protections in institutional settings)
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015) (distinguishing facial and as-applied challenges and noting difficulty of facial attacks)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (standard for successful facial challenges: challenger must show no set of circumstances where the statute would be valid)
- Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (rejected per se unfairness of presenting a child’s live testimony and videotaped interview; recognized potential defensive benefits from impeachment)
- Folks v. State, 207 P.3d 379 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008) (recorded interview may be used and does not inevitably bolster the State; victim can be impeached)
- State v. Anderson, 413 S.C. 212, 776 S.E.2d 76 (2015) (upholding § 17-23-175 against Confrontation Clause and related challenges)